Don't Look If You Have a weak Stomach : New York City’s Gay Pride 2011

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

As far as reciting the 1st amendment, we are thought we were protected from being forced to purchase insurance.

I worked in the nightclub business a few times. I have seen a business destroyed by public accommodation nondiscrimination law. A nightclub is an entertainment venue and they need to be able to define their business in style and mood, which means they need to be able to cater to a certain clientele and discourage others. It's a fact. But the law does not permit this. I agree with Rand Paul (on this one point) that that is not right and appears to be a violation of the Constitutional protection for freedom of association.

My point has never been that businesses (large or small) shouldn't be able to discriminate. My point has always been that the law currently forbids discrimination by public accommodations, and that the nondiscrimination should be across the board, not just for everyone but gay people, or by everyone except those claiming a religious basis for their discrimination.

Churches are not public accommodations, they are houses of worship. Many functions of churches outside their actual worship services and buildings have also been protected under law and judicial precedent. This is a category of special protections that even some churches and fraternal organizations do not enjoy. But there are limits to this (and all) exceptions. A church or a fraternal organization cannot simply slap a cross on whatever they do and call it "religion". And neither can a business which advertises and is open to the public. Right now, that's the law in many places.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate.

No, a photographer is an individual who has been compelled to attend an event that he does not endorse in order to document it for people that he did not seek to be employed by. Years ago, when I was freelancing, I was asked to do an illustration for an ad for PETA. I refused, because I emphatically disagreed with their agenda. Supposing that, instead of PETA that wanted my work, it was GLAAD? Would I have the right to refuse them, or would I have been accused of discrimination, hauled into court and forced to illustrate something that I found wrong and offensive? If the state can compel you to take a contract against your will, if it can order you to take jobs that you do not solicit or want, which denies you the right to seek out the work that you do want (having to photograph that "wedding" meant that he wasn't available for another event, and weddings tend to be clustered in June), then what freedom do you have? Would he have had the right to choose between the gay wedding and a traditional one, if there was a scheduling conflict, or would that be discrimination as well?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.

No? What if a customer brought in explicit photos from a gay pride parade, and Walgreen's refused to process them because of the sexual content? Would that be discriminatory? Let's say that in 2010, a customer brought in his gay pride film, and upon processing it, Walgreen's discovered acts which it considered immoral or obscene. Would Walgreen's have the right to refuse that customer's 2001 pics? Would the Jesus Saves Waffle House have the right to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or can the state order them to start up the griddle and truck their wares out to the reception hall?

Does an exclusive restaurant have the right to deny service to someone who doesn't wear a jacket and tie or who doesn't dress appropriately?

The answer to this depends somewhat on where you are. In some places the dress code has to be gender neutral. In DC for example, some straight guys took a Georgetown bar to court in the 1970's because their dress code forbid men from entering in jeans, shorts, or shirts with no collar. The same place routinely admitted females wearing jean skirts, t-shirts, and camisole type shirts. In checking dress codes for DC restaurants, I see that nicer restaurants list their dress code as "business casual". Since they live in fear of being sued, I have to assume it's a suggestion.

Originally Posted by NJCardFan

And in NY, aren't there clubs that the average person will not get in because they are not one of the beautiful people?

As I understand it, New York law permits retail liquor licenses to private clubs. I think they have fairly broad discretion in whom they admit, as long as it's not based in ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc... DC on the other hand, does not permit retail liquor licenses to private clubs unless they meet criteria which most clubs wouldn't qualify for. Years ago, while the DC gay bars were under scrutiny for racial discrimination, flying under the radar was a blacks-only dance club called "Andre's" which was technically a private club and did not serve or permit liquor. I say technically, because like the VFW or American Legion (I can't remember which it is) they offered instant or one night memberships; unlike the VFW and American Legion Hall, Andre's was a for-profit business and didn't sell alcohol.

The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

The answer to this depends somewhat on where you are. In some places the dress code has to be gender neutral. In DC for example, some straight guys took a Georgetown bar to court in the 1970's because their dress code forbid men from entering in jeans, shorts, or shirts with no collar. The same place routinely admitted females wearing jean skirts, t-shirts, and camisole type shirts. In checking dress codes for DC restaurants, I see that nicer restaurants list their dress code as "business casual". Since they live in fear of being sued, I have to assume it's a suggestion.

As I understand it, New York law permits retail liquor licenses to private clubs. I think they have fairly broad discretion in whom they admit, as long as it's not based in ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc... DC on the other hand, does not permit retail liquor licenses to private clubs unless they meet criteria which most clubs wouldn't qualify for. Years ago, while the DC gay bars were under scrutiny for racial discrimination, flying under the radar was a blacks-only dance club called "Andre's" which was technically a private club and did not serve or permit liquor. I say technically, because like the VFW or American Legion (I can't remember which it is) they offered instant or one night memberships; unlike the VFW and American Legion Hall, Andre's was a for-profit business and didn't sell alcohol.

The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.

So, was that just the long version of, "Gays are the most discriminatory people out there."?

I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad

......then what freedom do you have? Would he have had the right to choose between the gay wedding and a traditional one, if there was a scheduling conflict, or would that be discrimination as well?

I didn't say that I agreed with the New Mexico case, I said that it wasn't the same issue as a church. As for choosing between customers, I think you are supposed to serve first come, first served. Restaurant, for example, can't be off the hook simply because they agree to serve people of all religions, they have to serve them equally, ie they can't seat a Jew and a Gentile but only offer the specials to the Gentiles or make the Jews wait until the Gentiles have their food before ordering. They can't routinely give Gentiles window seats while refusing to seat Jews at the window seats.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

No? What if a customer brought in explicit photos from a gay pride parade, and Walgreen's refused to process them because of the sexual content?

As long as Walgreens has a consistent policy then they are covered. They cannot consider two men in swimsuits kissing "sexual content" but not an heterosexual couple in swimsuits kissing the same. They can refuse to print pictures of people in swimsuits, they cannot refuse to print only pictures of men in swimsuits or fat people in swim suits. They cannot print pics of women in g-strings, but refuse men in g-strings. They cannot refuse to print pics of Pride and print pics of Mardi Gras.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Let's say that in 2010, a customer brought in his gay pride film, and upon processing it, Walgreen's discovered acts which it considered immoral or obscene. Would Walgreen's have the right to refuse that customer's 2001 pics? Would the Jesus Saves Waffle House have the right to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or can the state order them to start up the griddle and truck their wares out to the reception hall?

Do people who own businesses have any rights at all?

Most nondiscrimination law is common sense. Like a lot of law, a reasonable person standard is applied. So a thinking person in business should ask himself if his policy is fair and consistent. If it is, then he won't run afoul of nondiscrimination laws. However, we live in a litigious society where anyone can attempt to sue anyone for almost anything. When dealing with the public, either at a hot dog stand or a photography studio you need to ask yourself if what you are doing is likely to get you sued and if it's worth your time, money, and perhaps your business.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

The answer to this depends somewhat on where you are. In some places the dress code has to be gender neutral. In DC for example, some straight guys took a Georgetown bar to court in the 1970's because their dress code forbid men from entering in jeans, shorts, or shirts with no collar. The same place routinely admitted females wearing jean skirts, t-shirts, and camisole type shirts. In checking dress codes for DC restaurants, I see that nicer restaurants list their dress code as "business casual". Since they live in fear of being sued, I have to assume it's a suggestion.

As I understand it, New York law permits retail liquor licenses to private clubs. I think they have fairly broad discretion in whom they admit, as long as it's not based in ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc... DC on the other hand, does not permit retail liquor licenses to private clubs unless they meet criteria which most clubs wouldn't qualify for. Years ago, while the DC gay bars were under scrutiny for racial discrimination, flying under the radar was a blacks-only dance club called "Andre's" which was technically a private club and did not serve or permit liquor. I say technically, because like the VFW or American Legion (I can't remember which it is) they offered instant or one night memberships; unlike the VFW and American Legion Hall, Andre's was a for-profit business and didn't sell alcohol.

The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.

Ah, so what you're saying is that it's perfectly OK for a club to exclude. Thanks. The double standard is alive and qwell. Discrimination in any form is discrimination. You either admit everyone or no one. You're saying a photographer cannot pick and choose their clientele but a night club can. Gotcha. And I like your wording; "private club". Um, a photographer is a private contractor, no? So, why can a private club discriminate but a private contractor cannot? Another question: can a white person take part in the Miss Black America pageant? Seems to me that the only group that it is ok to discriminate against with out fear of reprisal are straight white Christians.

Last edited by NJCardFan; 06-29-2011 at 01:36 PM.

The American Left: Where everything is politics and politics is everything.

So, was that just the long version of, "Gays are the most discriminatory people out there."?

No, that was me anticipating his next move. However, you are somewhat correct that gay people do discriminate in ways I have objected to for sometime. It ill behooves gay people to fight for equal rights and nondiscrimination policies and then run ads that say, "Apartment for rent in all gay building." or " No newspaper in its right mind would accept an ad that said , "Apartment for rent in all white building." I stop donating to Equality Florida when they ran an employment ad for an office manager that said something like "..... racial minorities are encouraged to apply." I understand that Equality Florida doesn't want to be perceived as being exclusively white (because it's overwhelmingly white) , but that doesn't excuse advertising a racial preference in hiring if one accepts and supports nondiscrimination laws.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

Ah, so what you're saying is that it's perfectly OK for a club to exclude.

The Violet Crumble impression doesn't become you.

Originally Posted by NJCardFan

You're saying a photographer cannot pick and choose their clientele but a night club can.

No, I'm saying that in New Mexico a photography business is considered a public accommodation and that some places are consider "private clubs" while others are considered "retail establishments". These are legal terms. The American Legion or a Country Club is permitted to take in a certain amount of business from the outside while selling cocktails and without losing its private status, but if they take in too much outside business then they have crossed the line into a public accommodation. Is this too difficult to understand?

By the same token, Burning Tree Country Club was told that they had to admit women or stop getting the Maryland property tax break for golf courses under "open space preservation". They elected to forfeit their tax exemption. Money talks and bullshit walks.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.

Yes, but for tax evasion, not the other issues.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

I didn't say that I agreed with the New Mexico case, I said that it wasn't the same issue as a church.

Actually, you said that a photography business cannot discriminate, and you strongly implied approval of the decision. Your exact words were:

Originally Posted by Novaheart

How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Sure sounds to me like you approved of that. Are you saying that the court was wrong and that he had the right to choose who he would enter into business with?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

As for choosing between customers, I think you are supposed to serve first come, first served. Restaurant, for example, can't be off the hook simply because they agree to serve people of all religions, they have to serve them equally, ie they can't seat a Jew and a Gentile but only offer the specials to the Gentiles or make the Jews wait until the Gentiles have their food before ordering. They can't routinely give Gentiles window seats while refusing to seat Jews at the window seats.

But restaurants don't always serve first come. In fact, A-list restaurants pride themselves on being unavailable to many patrons, but will kick celebrities to the front of the line. If Ashton Kutcher shows up at Tavern on the Green after I do but gets seated before me, do I have a cause of action? If I'm in uniform, is it proof of anti-military bias? If I'm wearing a yarmulka, is it proof of antisemitism? (perhaps I should wear both and double the size of the class action suit).

Originally Posted by Novaheart

As long as Walgreens has a consistent policy then they are covered. They cannot consider two men in swimsuits kissing "sexual content" but not an heterosexual couple in swimsuits kissing the same. They can refuse to print pictures of people in swimsuits, they cannot refuse to print only pictures of men in swimsuits or fat people in swim suits. They cannot print pics of women in g-strings, but refuse men in g-strings. They cannot refuse to print pics of Pride and print pics of Mardi Gras.

So, Walgreen's cannot object to pictures of two men kissing unless they also object to a heterosexual couple kissing? That sounds like the elementary school teacher who used to say that we couldn't chew gum unless we brought enough for everyone (it cost me two week's allowance to prove that even if I had enough gum, she just didn't want us chewing in her classroom, but that's another story). If a TV network accepted a condom ad with a male-female couple, but rejected one with a male-male couple out of concerns that the latter ad would cost them other advertisers, would you accuse them of discriminatory conduct? How would you resolve a conflict in which a network would keep the Trojans account, but lose other advertisers who don't want to be associated with gay sexual imagery? Would you sue the network, the advertisers or the viewers who wouldn't agree to the ensuing boycott?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Most nondiscrimination law is common sense. Like a lot of law, a reasonable person standard is applied.

And who decides who is reasonable and who isn't?

[QUOTE=Novaheart;429119So a thinking person in business should ask himself if his policy is fair and consistent. If it is, then he won't run afoul of nondiscrimination laws.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that the photographer in New Mexico thought that he was being fair and consistent. He didn't want to lend his business to a political cause that he disagreed with. OTOH, it's hard to find someone who doesn't think that their positions or policies are fair and consistent. As a friend of mine used to say, "Everyone is the hero of their own life story." If everyone had the same idea of what was fair and consistent, we wouldn't need courts, now would we?

[QUOTE=Novaheart;429119However, we live in a litigious society where anyone can attempt to sue anyone for almost anything. When dealing with the public, either at a hot dog stand or a photography studio you need to ask yourself if what you are doing is likely to get you sued and if it's worth your time, money, and perhaps your business.[/QUOTE]
In other words, we must weigh whether we are willing to endure either lawsuits, boycotts or harassment, or support political causes that we disagree with, as the price of doing business? How about just not suing the photographer for not wanting to work for you? No, wait, that wouldn't satisfy the activists' agenda, would it? We cannot have any individual act of conscience that resists the advance of your pride, can we? No matter how much damage is done, or how little the slight, everyone must be made to knuckle under.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

No, I'm saying that in New Mexico a photography business is considered a public accommodation and that some places are consider "private clubs" while others are considered "retail establishments". These are legal terms. The American Legion or a Country Club is permitted to take in a certain amount of business from the outside while selling cocktails and without losing its private status, but if they take in too much outside business then they have crossed the line into a public accommodation. Is this too difficult to understand?

It's difficult to understand because it's BS. A photography studio is not a public accommodation, it's a private business, and it is under no obligation to take work from any client who walks in the door, and when the state says otherwise, then it is indulging in tyrannical oppression.

No, I'm saying that in New Mexico a photography business is considered a public accommodation and that some places are consider "private clubs" while others are considered "retail establishments". These are legal terms. The American Legion or a Country Club is permitted to take in a certain amount of business from the outside while selling cocktails and without losing its private status, but if they take in too much outside business then they have crossed the line into a public accommodation. Is this too difficult to understand?

By the same token, Burning Tree Country Club was told that they had to admit women or stop getting the Maryland property tax break for golf courses under "open space preservation". They elected to forfeit their tax exemption. Money talks and bullshit walks.

I think all personal service type industries should be exempt from such anti-discrimination laws. If I'm a photographer and I don't feel comfortable around black people, gay people, wiccans, bikers, Irish Travelers, or obese people, I shouldn't have to perform my personal service for them.

Same goes for me as an attorney. Everyone has a right to an attorney. They don't have the right to me as an attorney.